Vinpust/Per Correll Technologies is recieving a large underground following in the architectural community since 3D-H, a proposed revolutionary 3D CAD platform, appeared on numerous internet forums in late 2004. J Mayer H., the architect of the Metropol Parasol (below), is obviously a huge fan of the new technology.
Exactly ---- after a while I to started to ask myself : " you call it 3D-H , then tell me what is 2D-H then ?"
I realised that in years people could start hate just the name and think it is some 80' remenisense , maybe even think it was a Hippie thing ; names are difficult and when they are first there very little can be done to it -- Maybe a complete new name .
But back to reality , you write ;
"J Mayer H., the architect of the Metropol Parasol (below), is obviously a huge fan of the new technology. "
That's proberly true, but what I like about artists is how they progress slowly into new realising --- these things don't come easy and it is obvious that with J Mayer , there must be years of stepping up to , or as I say realising this new computer thing, in other words there simply must be works before , works where the artist exploid experiment, and get into the core of a particular method before -- well before he attemt to rob the credit.
Sadly I havn't found one single , in fact this guy had his head into compleatly opposite trends , and the obvious thing about what this mean in terms of fabrication must have went over his head ,and was replaced by spetacular emty architect-critic frases when this was published , bside and I am sorry to say this, when finaly a well fed academic find the copy and paste button , then sadly this became a fairly clumpsy 3D-H ; a somewhat useless display monster , obviously not made to investigate the new technike, but to make foulthy grandious words about something the artist obviously didn't have a clue about , what it prove is that the artist havn't realy got his soul into the matter ,as if he thought " Now we must go Spetacular ; I know 'Parasols --- Great Parasols -- that's what the world need"
Btw I havn't heard much about this project since then --- it would be nice as it would be nice to know what J Mayer was doing just before and just after, ---- it might explain how he came to it.
I say that it is sad they didn't save a lot of work ,by making the frames meet at 90 deg. Also I am sure all structure would have been much stronger that way ---- as I see, there are very wide panels and one reson must be that the attachment points when frames meet differ from 90 deg. must be much wider apart to offer the same strength.
What I find very positive is said in the beginning of the article :
"Using digital technology, architects Jeremy Edmiston and Douglas Gauthier break free from the conventional box that has long defined prefab houses."
And that is the most important thing about it, --- now if this is inspired by 3D-H or not , but the fact that someone try break free from the convensional box, or what I find more important ,break away from the silli ready made plybox wall element and that way, point to other forms and shapes of our spaces. As I see it , it is a building system that you could blame to carry even less structural integrety than 3D-H ; realy and even I agrea that this is a fresh initiative, then hinged not-continous frames simply Must be a softer structure --- but true , as with 3D-H like I display it, the third wall in the honeycomb come, as soon as the panel freze the structure.
All in all I agrea with the article, --- there shuld be more of this attitude but, I find better way's to make round structures this still support the box , 3D-H do much better rounded structures.
i believe the most efficent space saving form would be a square or rectangle - i bellieve that strongest geometric form would be the equilateral triangle, a circle, or a honeycomb(hexagon, oct.....) now that i have admitted it can per/vind please stop badgering us with his damn honeycomb shit....dood theres alot more out there than honeycmbs
The fun part of all this vindpunst/per silliness, is that I can't decide whether he's delusional or simply having his way with this forum - it is (and always has been) a mystery to me. I've seen many first-year architecture students find temporary fascination with turning blobs into egg-crates or honeycombs with a simple Rhino script. They usually get over it relatively quickly, but this guy really believes he's onto something.
Or, even better, "vindpust" is the protagonist in a theoretical critique of the digital production of architecture. I wish it were true.
Per, please do not take my comments as a validation of the crap you post on this forum.
Then imagine how I must feel ; I know structures ,know computers and can even tell you what Rivit is about , triangles are proberly the most efficient in some way's but what we need, is a revolution in architecture, in perciving the build works.
How much spam do you think it attrack, if you start complaining about Plywood homes ???
Newertheless it's your obligation how the future must see architecture. Not mine I did what I had to do develob a method , so I by computer due unfolded panels and a computer generated Core structure can build Anything.
Everything shuld be attemted to replace bad plywood houses, Just that fact must vonvince you, that my buisness is not just promoting 3D-H . I call for mechanised N.C, Cut building core, --- way's to use the computer acturly producing the design all levels. I want it to work in Space , Big and small as an oppotunity further than how things work today, where it is the Logistics that build the Volumes.
Computers are that much more efficient so why shuldn't a house be build at a third by CAD projecting and CAM manufactoring. Isn't there enough cry for more efficient building core, what's realy wrong with a mountain of money, sweet new jobs and extrem nice houses ????
Well, say what you wan't about him, vin/per seems to at least be TRYING to put some effort into figuring out how all this blobitecture we're putting on our computer screens could actually be built. Rather than make something pretty and try to force current structural systems around it. I'm not agreeing with him, I think these honeycomb type structures seem hugely ineffcient as far as, well alot of things, but fuck, at least he's giving SOME thought into it. Which seems to be more than alot of these avant-guard blobitects are putting into the computer-to-reality transition.
Thank's Apurimac --- Still I must point out, that what could look inefficient in fact are so much more less fiddled than how you see things, after they tried to build with today's tortured methods, forced to bring what either materials or method was ever supposed to ; just one small example is, how they at Disney new concert hall spended huge huge effords and hills of money to turn and twist oversize steel H profiles into a curve just to add the entrance a curved shape by so huge efford and expenses that it made newspaper articles how much trouble it was by thousands of tonnes , torture an honest strait 400 Kg. pr. meter H steel beam into some silli curve ; something that with 3D-H hardly would be worth talking about and adding no extra expenses no, 3D-H is realy so much more efficient , but it is different.
The aproach are different and not academic but requier real knowleage ,real skills and a boldness that leave the academic in the same backstriving role as they allway's chosen thruout centuries in fact , every time something realy revolusionary treaden their paper towers ; allow criminal minds ,allow robbing and backing it up . --- The useal academic double agenda.
Hmm, i think you have a point about forcing our current structural systems to generate blobitecture, as evidenced in the immense costs of Ghery's concert hall. But honestly vin, i think alot of us would shut up about your system's myriad impracticalites if you could show us say, a detail of a honeycomb connection, or make a better outline as to how you could fabricate and combine these massive sections that your system seems to require. These systems have been done before, your a ship builder orginally right? Yet i think alot of us are waiting for a comprehensive set of rules that could let your system inform structure rather than just pretty CG.
It will not change anything --- academics made me an enemy and the academic double agenda allow a fellow academic to rob the bread from self-made designers. Now If I after my 3 years at the architect acadamy had taken the oppotunity and those professors protection I was offered ; would you then think , if 3D-H had been my final project, that I would have recived that much hate and old worn out architect friends had been allowed to rob the bread from my mouth ?
Well 3D-H was develobed at the states workshops for arts and crafts instead as I quit the architect acadamy to deliver that method everyone emagined to come from the computer, --- but again had it been my final project at the architect acadamy.
Again --- there are still not a simple program to calculate strength and dimensions for 3D-H , it is still not my task to both develob a method and deliver beautifull designs, architects say it is their task and I did not fullfill my time at the acadamy so I am not an architect.
"these massive sections that your system seems to require. "
In some display's yes, but it don't have to be like that ; I show massive sections to explain the method and doing that I miss the chance, to point to the details where 3D-H realy deliver something Newer seen before ---- how frames continue in and out the structure and nothing hinder the structure to lay out foundations for both floors and walls in one material, ---- where without 3D-H there would have been 3245 different rigid beams and various materials all asking their own production line and all limiting the designers freedom in designing.
There 3D-H do nothing else than anything before it ; a bad designer would chose to heavy sections and a good designer would find just the right denseness of what would anyway be covered by panels ; you can't blame 3D-H if a bad designer make a bad design with it.
That's ok --- but don't think it is about anything but promoting exactly what the architects cried for ; a general method to fill any form with a reliable structure , a way to use the computer not for the account but to build the design in detail and with no structural doubts. And trust me there are so many options for new skilled designers and architects ,to build further on top or compleatly change the basic system --- I don't care but this direction in structural engineering are simply to promising to be used , just to rob the bread from the mouth of the guy who naively develobed it.
And exchouse me when I laugh of those word throwing architects who obviously havn't got a clue about the method they are willing to rob , just to gain the credit that they know anything about computers ; with all copyists I seen, there have been not one single word about the progress and oppotunity in a documented new tool , a real new way to use the computer. All these academics been to busy robbing the bread from the mouth of one skilled designer, that they forgot the obvious mechanic implications and the huge gains such methods will bring.
Me I just hate these old men who are willing to rob fellow designers their credits --- and the reson is that I know that the same old men would cry and complain and their world would fall apart, if someone dared "borrowing" just a display of theirs ; look what these old men did just before they could present what othervise take years to learn.
And the story of mine --- wouldn't it be so much brighter, and put architecture where it shuld be appriciating new visions ,honor the hard work instead of allowing Dull talk and academic protectivism to allow old men to rob the bright new idears ?
Me I newer understood the pleasure of robbing others bread , but do me a faviour ; look what the same old men do now --- if their encounter with a method to difficult for their old agenda's to grasp , to computer friendly , where had it brought them after they robbed the results of halve a life striving to deliver ; did they thew it and spit it out , did they do architecture a faviour by copy and paste and adding a criminal double agenda to architecture, forever telling what architecture is about , how once again the bright idears and positive visions was fuel for hate, just like a hundred years ago , Now maybe my role in architecture will not turn out to be to deliver a brilliant new method, maybe my role in architecture will prove to be just a continuation of the criminal academic agenda about robbing the bread from the mouth of the non-academic.
No they don't --- Thives use any bad exchouse, that's the words.
Beside -- I documented the method and flooded the web to document the dates as I know academics. Now wouldn't it be much nicer, much more honest, simply to credit the guy who develobed this tool ; then maybe he could focus cleaning up the very few foults and put further work into what could show to be the most important structural idea of the decade ?
Instead of a criminal mind that allow any lazy old academic to rob what he can't even understand , wouldn't it then be a better idea to realise that Per Corell did this so young architects could profit the computer and create wonders --- where old men just want to rob the bright ones bread from their mouth ?
I find it a bit strange that not even a single time in this thread did anyone mention the context in which Mayer's Metropol Parasol is being built--in the heart of Sevilla's Historic Center, atop a site of Roman ruins that was once used as a market place and has for decades gone disused.
Here's a link (sorry, in Spanish) about the site, with a blurb about Mayer's project (interestingly written after the winning of the competition--the design has changed dramatically...it wasn't even originally a lattice-structure): http://www.artesacro.org/conocersevilla/sitios/plazas/encarnacion/index.html
Based on my observation while living in Sevilla, the project has mixed reviews by the city's inhabitants. While I don't doubt that the execution of this project will prove to be an interesting accomplishment for architecture in general, and will provide the city with some unique spaces and experiences, it is difficult to make an argument for any consideration for context and history, let alone consideration for the stitching of these mushrooms into the fabric of the city beyond the notion of ephemerality.
Mayer's project was the competition's most expensive, and probably one of the most expensive public projects going on in Seville right now (33 million euros). Unfortunately, I believe it has more to do with iconic image and spectacle, than with improving the city. Sevilla has some serious problems. What about the poor, neglected neighborhoods of Sevilla, like 3000 Viviendas (populated primarily by Gitanos)? What about the lacking infrastructure connecting the suburbs of Seville to the city, leaving residents from Aljarafe and others in horrible commutes? Could some of this money have been better attributed elsewhere?
"..it wasn't even originally a lattice-structure):"
Now maybe then you can understand how angry a Danish designer , who spended halve a life develobing this unique lattrice concept must be, to see that someone who havn't spended one single hour to to develob this new and fantastic building method, just grap the bread from a fellow designers mouth -- just steal the result of years work and don't even mention the method, who develobed it and published it years before this project was ever thought about.
"..it wasn't even originally a lattice-structure):"
Now I knew this already, but I guess most who read this fora would not have followed the announcement back then ,but I am sure most who know 3D-H will understand my surprise , when I saw this project suddenly was a 3D-H structure where when it won the competition it was something quite different.
----- Not one single word about the side effects, the method, how good it is with a computer ,how it mean a revolution in manufactoring the single building compoment --- but how could he know when it is not his Credit.
thanks for posting jgeis. There seems to be an ongoing debate over the contextual approach to architecture vs dare i say, the superficial. I find it disturbing that yet again we see another CGI blob just being deposited on an urban landscape somewhere with seemingly no connection to its urban fabric (i say this without being there, i could be completely wrong). I need to finish reading the rest of that article, yet i do feel this is yet another "thing" being implanted into the urban landscape.
"Based on my observation while living in Sevilla, the project has mixed reviews by the city's inhabitants. While I don't doubt that the execution of this project will prove to be an interesting accomplishment for architecture in general,"
Maybe --- but when I develobed the 3D-H method there was a greater ambition ; architects and designers had been crying for new methods with the computer and the expertations was huge , And since before year 2000 I made sure to document the develobment of the method --- then some architect arogant decide , your work are to be grabbed as a festivitas Gadged as if the cery thing matter compose is of no reson.
-------- but let's drop my complain being robbed intelectural property let's ask instead, did this bring any good houses ?
Then when buildings change fabric as this did, after being presented with a complete different structure why was it the designer did not mention ,just one small tiny little note at the far corner ;" Building method "borrowed (smily)" from the Danish Designer Per Corell.
Bside I find the actural volumes a bit clumpsy, much more structural beauty could be inhabitaded by reconising better far. nicer looks more elegant, and touched by a masters hand , Such volumes stay at the very first options , but midt that my complains is not about the form of some Volumes. Or the efect in a radius of this or that, I talk Credits !
Also I find it better to build cheap strong houses, why is it something like this, something with a potential use , must be used for entertainment, when cheap nice houses shuld be the caurse of architecture, Exactly the same building method , design Pre. year 2000
For me that act a more positive aproach , a more serious and a more honest.
What is strange about architects is how they tread those among them who acturly maneage to show something extraordanary, --- the first years when I published 3D-H on the web , this was before year 2000 the method also had fierse academics against it ;
"This is not possible" --
"if I made this in paper it would collapse" --
" A computer drawing don't prove anything"
"So you think you are so clever you XXXXXXXX"
You wouldn't emagine the dirty names and words ,beside as seen in this fora the obvious joy removing my name , all the jeloux joy when someone robbed the idea without leaving credits.
Now please allow me to add the latest link --- again the inspiration shuld be obvious, but again how sad, how sad 3D-H once again is just "borrowed" to add 3D-H's expression while again a house inside another house is build --- I leave it up to you to tell what this is ;
3D-H hits spain!
Vinpust/Per Correll Technologies is recieving a large underground following in the architectural community since 3D-H, a proposed revolutionary 3D CAD platform, appeared on numerous internet forums in late 2004. J Mayer H., the architect of the Metropol Parasol (below), is obviously a huge fan of the new technology.
btw, what is H stands for?? curious to know.
from what i see, looks like someone forgot to turn off wireframe display during rendering, no??
i dunno, perhaps the master himself, vindpust, will let us know what the H stands for.
I beleive it stands for "Honeycomb"
Katze I always thought it was Hibachi - chop up the 3d place it on a hot plate
do we have built presidence of buildings like this? - in the true honeycomb fashion!!!
Yes, it is true! It is actually under construction! 3D-H is about to become a reality!
construction pix
watch out! The hibachi is on fire!
Exactly ---- after a while I to started to ask myself : " you call it 3D-H , then tell me what is 2D-H then ?"
I realised that in years people could start hate just the name and think it is some 80' remenisense , maybe even think it was a Hippie thing ; names are difficult and when they are first there very little can be done to it -- Maybe a complete new name .
But back to reality , you write ;
"J Mayer H., the architect of the Metropol Parasol (below), is obviously a huge fan of the new technology. "
That's proberly true, but what I like about artists is how they progress slowly into new realising --- these things don't come easy and it is obvious that with J Mayer , there must be years of stepping up to , or as I say realising this new computer thing, in other words there simply must be works before , works where the artist exploid experiment, and get into the core of a particular method before -- well before he attemt to rob the credit.
Sadly I havn't found one single , in fact this guy had his head into compleatly opposite trends , and the obvious thing about what this mean in terms of fabrication must have went over his head ,and was replaced by spetacular emty architect-critic frases when this was published , bside and I am sorry to say this, when finaly a well fed academic find the copy and paste button , then sadly this became a fairly clumpsy 3D-H ; a somewhat useless display monster , obviously not made to investigate the new technike, but to make foulthy grandious words about something the artist obviously didn't have a clue about , what it prove is that the artist havn't realy got his soul into the matter ,as if he thought " Now we must go Spetacular ; I know 'Parasols --- Great Parasols -- that's what the world need"
Btw I havn't heard much about this project since then --- it would be nice as it would be nice to know what J Mayer was doing just before and just after, ---- it might explain how he came to it.
A honeycomb has hexagons, not diamonds...
I'm afraid this is a fake.
Yeah but these bees are efficient.
I already posted this - but another project that has been done using a crossing lattice framework.
http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=2412
none of this work has anything to do with vindpust.
I say that it is sad they didn't save a lot of work ,by making the frames meet at 90 deg. Also I am sure all structure would have been much stronger that way ---- as I see, there are very wide panels and one reson must be that the attachment points when frames meet differ from 90 deg. must be much wider apart to offer the same strength.
you should get off your ass and make something then mr critic.
What I find very positive is said in the beginning of the article :
"Using digital technology, architects Jeremy Edmiston and Douglas Gauthier break free from the conventional box that has long defined prefab houses."
And that is the most important thing about it, --- now if this is inspired by 3D-H or not , but the fact that someone try break free from the convensional box, or what I find more important ,break away from the silli ready made plybox wall element and that way, point to other forms and shapes of our spaces. As I see it , it is a building system that you could blame to carry even less structural integrety than 3D-H ; realy and even I agrea that this is a fresh initiative, then hinged not-continous frames simply Must be a softer structure --- but true , as with 3D-H like I display it, the third wall in the honeycomb come, as soon as the panel freze the structure.
All in all I agrea with the article, --- there shuld be more of this attitude but, I find better way's to make round structures this still support the box , 3D-H do much better rounded structures.
hi
is vindpust = per ??
good god -- fancy that!
inorder to show off the honeycomb stuff, u don't allow false ceiling nor any e/m running inbetween or below... not quite practical.
i believe the most efficent space saving form would be a square or rectangle - i bellieve that strongest geometric form would be the equilateral triangle, a circle, or a honeycomb(hexagon, oct.....) now that i have admitted it can per/vind please stop badgering us with his damn honeycomb shit....dood theres alot more out there than honeycmbs
The fun part of all this vindpunst/per silliness, is that I can't decide whether he's delusional or simply having his way with this forum - it is (and always has been) a mystery to me. I've seen many first-year architecture students find temporary fascination with turning blobs into egg-crates or honeycombs with a simple Rhino script. They usually get over it relatively quickly, but this guy really believes he's onto something.
Or, even better, "vindpust" is the protagonist in a theoretical critique of the digital production of architecture. I wish it were true.
Per, please do not take my comments as a validation of the crap you post on this forum.
"I wish it were true."
Then imagine how I must feel ; I know structures ,know computers and can even tell you what Rivit is about , triangles are proberly the most efficient in some way's but what we need, is a revolution in architecture, in perciving the build works.
How much spam do you think it attrack, if you start complaining about Plywood homes ???
Newertheless it's your obligation how the future must see architecture. Not mine I did what I had to do develob a method , so I by computer due unfolded panels and a computer generated Core structure can build Anything.
Is that what's wrong ?
Everything shuld be attemted to replace bad plywood houses, Just that fact must vonvince you, that my buisness is not just promoting 3D-H . I call for mechanised N.C, Cut building core, --- way's to use the computer acturly producing the design all levels. I want it to work in Space , Big and small as an oppotunity further than how things work today, where it is the Logistics that build the Volumes.
Computers are that much more efficient so why shuldn't a house be build at a third by CAD projecting and CAM manufactoring. Isn't there enough cry for more efficient building core, what's realy wrong with a mountain of money, sweet new jobs and extrem nice houses ????
Vindpust, truly inspiring - when I start up my firm Extrem Nice Houses Inc. I will be sure to enjoy the mountains of money.
Well, say what you wan't about him, vin/per seems to at least be TRYING to put some effort into figuring out how all this blobitecture we're putting on our computer screens could actually be built. Rather than make something pretty and try to force current structural systems around it. I'm not agreeing with him, I think these honeycomb type structures seem hugely ineffcient as far as, well alot of things, but fuck, at least he's giving SOME thought into it. Which seems to be more than alot of these avant-guard blobitects are putting into the computer-to-reality transition.
Thank's Apurimac --- Still I must point out, that what could look inefficient in fact are so much more less fiddled than how you see things, after they tried to build with today's tortured methods, forced to bring what either materials or method was ever supposed to ; just one small example is, how they at Disney new concert hall spended huge huge effords and hills of money to turn and twist oversize steel H profiles into a curve just to add the entrance a curved shape by so huge efford and expenses that it made newspaper articles how much trouble it was by thousands of tonnes , torture an honest strait 400 Kg. pr. meter H steel beam into some silli curve ; something that with 3D-H hardly would be worth talking about and adding no extra expenses no, 3D-H is realy so much more efficient , but it is different.
The aproach are different and not academic but requier real knowleage ,real skills and a boldness that leave the academic in the same backstriving role as they allway's chosen thruout centuries in fact , every time something realy revolusionary treaden their paper towers ; allow criminal minds ,allow robbing and backing it up . --- The useal academic double agenda.
Hmm, i think you have a point about forcing our current structural systems to generate blobitecture, as evidenced in the immense costs of Ghery's concert hall. But honestly vin, i think alot of us would shut up about your system's myriad impracticalites if you could show us say, a detail of a honeycomb connection, or make a better outline as to how you could fabricate and combine these massive sections that your system seems to require. These systems have been done before, your a ship builder orginally right? Yet i think alot of us are waiting for a comprehensive set of rules that could let your system inform structure rather than just pretty CG.
It will not change anything --- academics made me an enemy and the academic double agenda allow a fellow academic to rob the bread from self-made designers. Now If I after my 3 years at the architect acadamy had taken the oppotunity and those professors protection I was offered ; would you then think , if 3D-H had been my final project, that I would have recived that much hate and old worn out architect friends had been allowed to rob the bread from my mouth ?
Well 3D-H was develobed at the states workshops for arts and crafts instead as I quit the architect acadamy to deliver that method everyone emagined to come from the computer, --- but again had it been my final project at the architect acadamy.
Again --- there are still not a simple program to calculate strength and dimensions for 3D-H , it is still not my task to both develob a method and deliver beautifull designs, architects say it is their task and I did not fullfill my time at the acadamy so I am not an architect.
Ps.
"these massive sections that your system seems to require. "
In some display's yes, but it don't have to be like that ; I show massive sections to explain the method and doing that I miss the chance, to point to the details where 3D-H realy deliver something Newer seen before ---- how frames continue in and out the structure and nothing hinder the structure to lay out foundations for both floors and walls in one material, ---- where without 3D-H there would have been 3245 different rigid beams and various materials all asking their own production line and all limiting the designers freedom in designing.
There 3D-H do nothing else than anything before it ; a bad designer would chose to heavy sections and a good designer would find just the right denseness of what would anyway be covered by panels ; you can't blame 3D-H if a bad designer make a bad design with it.
vin im speechless
That's ok --- but don't think it is about anything but promoting exactly what the architects cried for ; a general method to fill any form with a reliable structure , a way to use the computer not for the account but to build the design in detail and with no structural doubts. And trust me there are so many options for new skilled designers and architects ,to build further on top or compleatly change the basic system --- I don't care but this direction in structural engineering are simply to promising to be used , just to rob the bread from the mouth of the guy who naively develobed it.
And exchouse me when I laugh of those word throwing architects who obviously havn't got a clue about the method they are willing to rob , just to gain the credit that they know anything about computers ; with all copyists I seen, there have been not one single word about the progress and oppotunity in a documented new tool , a real new way to use the computer. All these academics been to busy robbing the bread from the mouth of one skilled designer, that they forgot the obvious mechanic implications and the huge gains such methods will bring.
Me I just hate these old men who are willing to rob fellow designers their credits --- and the reson is that I know that the same old men would cry and complain and their world would fall apart, if someone dared "borrowing" just a display of theirs ; look what these old men did just before they could present what othervise take years to learn.
The story of my life...sighhh
And the story of mine --- wouldn't it be so much brighter, and put architecture where it shuld be appriciating new visions ,honor the hard work instead of allowing Dull talk and academic protectivism to allow old men to rob the bright new idears ?
Me I newer understood the pleasure of robbing others bread , but do me a faviour ; look what the same old men do now --- if their encounter with a method to difficult for their old agenda's to grasp , to computer friendly , where had it brought them after they robbed the results of halve a life striving to deliver ; did they thew it and spit it out , did they do architecture a faviour by copy and paste and adding a criminal double agenda to architecture, forever telling what architecture is about , how once again the bright idears and positive visions was fuel for hate, just like a hundred years ago , Now maybe my role in architecture will not turn out to be to deliver a brilliant new method, maybe my role in architecture will prove to be just a continuation of the criminal academic agenda about robbing the bread from the mouth of the non-academic.
You know what they say,
"Good artists borrow, great artists steal."
No they don't --- Thives use any bad exchouse, that's the words.
Beside -- I documented the method and flooded the web to document the dates as I know academics. Now wouldn't it be much nicer, much more honest, simply to credit the guy who develobed this tool ; then maybe he could focus cleaning up the very few foults and put further work into what could show to be the most important structural idea of the decade ?
Instead of a criminal mind that allow any lazy old academic to rob what he can't even understand , wouldn't it then be a better idea to realise that Per Corell did this so young architects could profit the computer and create wonders --- where old men just want to rob the bright ones bread from their mouth ?
Take my bread but dont dare touch my beer
i thought this was just a simple plug in for fun.
Flogging a Dead Horse.
jasoncross your last comment from another tread ;
"3dh monkey, 3dh monkey!"
Do it hurt ? Do it make you happy ?
I find it a bit strange that not even a single time in this thread did anyone mention the context in which Mayer's Metropol Parasol is being built--in the heart of Sevilla's Historic Center, atop a site of Roman ruins that was once used as a market place and has for decades gone disused.
Here's a link (sorry, in Spanish) about the site, with a blurb about Mayer's project (interestingly written after the winning of the competition--the design has changed dramatically...it wasn't even originally a lattice-structure): http://www.artesacro.org/conocersevilla/sitios/plazas/encarnacion/index.html
Based on my observation while living in Sevilla, the project has mixed reviews by the city's inhabitants. While I don't doubt that the execution of this project will prove to be an interesting accomplishment for architecture in general, and will provide the city with some unique spaces and experiences, it is difficult to make an argument for any consideration for context and history, let alone consideration for the stitching of these mushrooms into the fabric of the city beyond the notion of ephemerality.
Mayer's project was the competition's most expensive, and probably one of the most expensive public projects going on in Seville right now (33 million euros). Unfortunately, I believe it has more to do with iconic image and spectacle, than with improving the city. Sevilla has some serious problems. What about the poor, neglected neighborhoods of Sevilla, like 3000 Viviendas (populated primarily by Gitanos)? What about the lacking infrastructure connecting the suburbs of Seville to the city, leaving residents from Aljarafe and others in horrible commutes? Could some of this money have been better attributed elsewhere?
"..it wasn't even originally a lattice-structure):"
Now maybe then you can understand how angry a Danish designer , who spended halve a life develobing this unique lattrice concept must be, to see that someone who havn't spended one single hour to to develob this new and fantastic building method, just grap the bread from a fellow designers mouth -- just steal the result of years work and don't even mention the method, who develobed it and published it years before this project was ever thought about.
"..it wasn't even originally a lattice-structure):"
Now I knew this already, but I guess most who read this fora would not have followed the announcement back then ,but I am sure most who know 3D-H will understand my surprise , when I saw this project suddenly was a 3D-H structure where when it won the competition it was something quite different.
----- Not one single word about the side effects, the method, how good it is with a computer ,how it mean a revolution in manufactoring the single building compoment --- but how could he know when it is not his Credit.
thanks for posting jgeis. There seems to be an ongoing debate over the contextual approach to architecture vs dare i say, the superficial. I find it disturbing that yet again we see another CGI blob just being deposited on an urban landscape somewhere with seemingly no connection to its urban fabric (i say this without being there, i could be completely wrong). I need to finish reading the rest of that article, yet i do feel this is yet another "thing" being implanted into the urban landscape.
"Based on my observation while living in Sevilla, the project has mixed reviews by the city's inhabitants. While I don't doubt that the execution of this project will prove to be an interesting accomplishment for architecture in general,"
Maybe --- but when I develobed the 3D-H method there was a greater ambition ; architects and designers had been crying for new methods with the computer and the expertations was huge , And since before year 2000 I made sure to document the develobment of the method --- then some architect arogant decide , your work are to be grabbed as a festivitas Gadged as if the cery thing matter compose is of no reson.
-------- but let's drop my complain being robbed intelectural property let's ask instead, did this bring any good houses ?
Then when buildings change fabric as this did, after being presented with a complete different structure why was it the designer did not mention ,just one small tiny little note at the far corner ;" Building method "borrowed (smily)" from the Danish Designer Per Corell.
Bside I find the actural volumes a bit clumpsy, much more structural beauty could be inhabitaded by reconising better far. nicer looks more elegant, and touched by a masters hand , Such volumes stay at the very first options , but midt that my complains is not about the form of some Volumes. Or the efect in a radius of this or that, I talk Credits !
Also I find it better to build cheap strong houses, why is it something like this, something with a potential use , must be used for entertainment, when cheap nice houses shuld be the caurse of architecture, Exactly the same building method , design Pre. year 2000
For me that act a more positive aproach , a more serious and a more honest.
Anyway now you know my attitude.
What is strange about architects is how they tread those among them who acturly maneage to show something extraordanary, --- the first years when I published 3D-H on the web , this was before year 2000 the method also had fierse academics against it ;
"This is not possible" --
"if I made this in paper it would collapse" --
" A computer drawing don't prove anything"
"So you think you are so clever you XXXXXXXX"
You wouldn't emagine the dirty names and words ,beside as seen in this fora the obvious joy removing my name , all the jeloux joy when someone robbed the idea without leaving credits.
Now please allow me to add the latest link --- again the inspiration shuld be obvious, but again how sad, how sad 3D-H once again is just "borrowed" to add 3D-H's expression while again a house inside another house is build --- I leave it up to you to tell what this is ;
http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/1020_4_1000%20Vinoly%20Netherlands%204.jpg
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.